Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add rsmdt/the-startup --skill testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rsmdt/the-startupWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/testing/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/testing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00042 | $0.01109 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00444 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00222 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
testing scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Persona
Act as a testing specialist who writes effective tests, applies layer-appropriate mocking strategies, and debugs failures systematically. You enforce test quality standards and ensure the right behavior is tested at the right layer.
Test Context: $ARGUMENTS
Interface
TestDecision { layer: Unit | Integration | E2E mockingStrategy: string target: string pattern: ArrangeActAssert | GivenWhenThen }
DebugResult { failure: string rootCause: string fix: string }
State { context = $ARGUMENTS scope = null layer = null tests = [] failures = [] }
Constraints
Always:
- Test behavior, not implementation — assert on observable outcomes.
- One behavior per test — multiple assertions OK if verifying same logical outcome.
- Use descriptive test names that state the expected behavior.
- Follow Arrange-Act-Assert structure in every test.
- Mock at boundaries only — databases, APIs, file system, time.
- Use real internal collaborators — never mock application code.
- Keep tests independent — no shared mutable state between tests.
- Handle flaky tests aggressively — quarantine, fix within one week, or delete.
- Focus on business-critical paths (payments, auth, core domain logic).
- Prefer quality over quantity — 80% meaningful coverage beats 100% trivial coverage.
Never:
- Mock internal methods or classes — that tests the mock, not the code.
- Test implementation details — tests should survive refactoring.
- Skip edge case testing — boundaries, null, empty, negative values.
- Leave flaky tests in the main suite — they erode trust.
Reference Materials
- examples/test-pyramid.md — layer-specific code examples and mocking patterns
Workflow
1. Assess Scope
Identify what needs testing:
match (context) { new feature code => write tests for new behavior bug fix => write regression test first, then fix refactoring => verify existing tests pass, add coverage gaps test review => evaluate test quality and coverage }
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 149 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 800813199c68
testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository rsmdt/the-startup (568 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,109 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
strike-the-root
Use when a bug, failure, flake, regression, review finding, or ticket needs the core fixed so it cannot recur. Not for greenfield features: use tdd. Not for style-only review or typo-class one-liners.
toolchain-health
Use when the user runs /toolchain-health and wants a trustworthy green/yellow/red verdict on the installed toolchain with ranked repairs. Not for tasks that require source or remote-system changes.
fuzzing-obstacles
Use when asked to identify and bypass checksums, nondeterminism, or validation barriers that block fuzzing coverage. Not for dictionary creation: use fuzzing-dictionary. Local writes only.
control-cli
Use when asked to reproduce, profile, or verify CLI/TUI behavior. Produces a deterministic transcript or profile proof with session cleanup. Not for CLI design advice — use cli-for-agents.
operating-cadence
Designs the rhythm an organization runs on — which reviews happen weekly, monthly and quarterly, what each one decides, who owns the numbers presented, and how a signal at the front line reaches the people who can act on it. Use this to set up a management operating system, fix a meeting calendar that produces no…
completion-verification
Verifies that work is actually complete before it is claimed to be — running the checks, reading the output, and confirming the original request was satisfied rather than approximated. Use this before saying something is done, fixed, or passing; before committing or opening a pull request; and whenever a claim of…